Reproduced with permission from 15 Journal of Law and Commerce 159-174 (1995)
[Commentary on] Tribunale di Monza, sentenza 14 Gennaio 1993, Laudisio Presidente, Lapertosa Estensore, Nuova Fucinati S.p.a. (avv. Bassi, Santamaria) c. Fondmetall International A.B. (avv. Bianchi, Ginelli, Rossi).
[Synopsis of the decision of the Tribunal of Monza:] The Vienna Convention of April 11, 1980 on contracts for the international sale of goods does not apply to a contract for sale entered into by a seller resident of Italy and a buyer resident of Sweden before the Convention enters into force in the latter state.
When the parties negotiate the choice of law applicable to an international contract, the rules of private international law do not apply.
Professor Ferrari's Commentary is here translated from the Italian, in which it originally appeared under the title La prima decisione italiana in tema di Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale in Giurisprudenza italiana, vol. CXLVI, 1994-Part I-Sez. II, p. 146 (1994).
SUMMARY: 1) Introduction. 2) The "contract of sale" according to the Vienna Convention. 3) The international character of the required contractual relationship. 4) Application of the Vienna Convention pursuant to Article 1(1)(a). 5) Application pursuant to Article 1(1)(b) and private international law in general. 6) Application of the Hague Convention [on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Movables] of 1955. 7) Choice of law by the parties and exclusion of the Vienna Sales Convention.
1. Sales contracts constitute the "mercantile contract par excellence" and, therefore, the "pillar of the entire system of commercial [page 160] relations." The Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, ratified in Italy under Law no. 765 of December 11, 1985, is in force in the majority of the most important commercial partners of Italy. Thus it is surprising how little attention has been paid the Convention by Italian courts.[page 161]
The decision of the Tribunal of Monza represents, in fact, "the first Italian decision concerning the Vienna Convention," even though other occasions in which the Convention could (rectius: should) have been applied were not lacking. The Tribunal of Monza had to rule on a request to avoid for supervening excessive onerousness a sales contract between an Italian corporation (the seller) and a Swedish corporation (the buyer) entered into before the Vienna Convention came into force in Sweden but after it came into force in Italy. The court correctly raised the question whether this international sales transaction was governed by the uniform law, but it erroneously concluded that the Convention did not apply. Through an analysis of this decision and a review of some doctrinal disputes that have arisen concerning the applicability of the Convention, this commentary will demonstrate that the court should have applied the 1980 Uniform Law on International Sales.
2. The Vienna Convention, like the Hague Conventions of 1964[page 162] which it replaced, applies only to contracts for the sale of goods which have an international character -- a limitation that has been criticized. In fact, it has been said that one can no longer justifiably distinguish between "domestic" and "international" sales because at this point there are no "substantial differences between import and export transactions and the purchase and sale of the same products in the domestic sphere."
As for the subject matter of contracts governed by the 1980 Convention, it should be noted that, like the Hague Conventions of 1964, the Vienna Convention does not explicitly define "sales contract." However, taking into consideration the parties' rights and obligations under the 1980 Convention, particularly Articles 30 and 53, and [page 163] keeping in mind "the economic purpose of the exchange of goods for a price, which is a valid reference point for distinguishing it [a sale] from similar contracts," it is not difficult, as scholars have confirmed, to elaborate a precise definition. Thus, under the Vienna Convention, a contract of "sale" is an agreement by virtue of which the seller is obliged to deliver the goods, transfer their ownership, and hand over all documents relating to them, while the buyer is obliged to pay the price and accept delivery of the goods.
3. The Vienna Convention, like the 1964 Hague Conventions, regulates only international sales contracts. However this does not mean [page 164] that the sphere of application of these Conventions is identical. Under the Hague Conventions a sale was deemed international if it presented two elements of internationality, one subjective, the other objective.
With respect to the first [subjective] element, internationality [under the Hague Conventions] required that the parties have their "places of business" (or, in lack thereof, their habitual residence) in two different States (which could be non-contracting States) regardless of whether or not the parties had the same nationality. The second [objective] element required one of the following alternatives: cross-border transportation of the goods subject to the contract, offer and acceptance occurring in different States, or delivery [of the goods] taking place in a State different from the one in which the offer and acceptance occurred. The Vienna Convention, unlike the Hague Sales Conventions, requires only that the place of business (or, [absent a place of business,] the habitual residence) of each party be in different [page 165] States [in order for a transaction to be deemed international]. Whether or not the States in which the parties are located are Contracting States is not a matter pertinent to internationality, although it is a factor affecting the application of the Vienna Convention. The 1980 law thus has a broader scope than the 1964 Conventions; under the Vienna Convention, a contract of sale can be deemed "international" whether or not it involves cross-border transportation or an offer and an acceptance made in different States.
There is no doubt that the case in question [i.e., the one before the Tribunal of Monza] involved a sale of goods (an obligation on one side to deliver and transfer title to 1000 tons of ironchrome, and an obligation on the other side to pay the agreed price of $ 0.545 per kilo) that was international (the seller being a corporation with its place of business in Italy, and the buyer a corporation with its place of business in Sweden). Thus the Tribunal of Monza correctly raised the question whether the Vienna Convention applied.
4. The fact that a contract for the sale of goods is "international" in the sense just discussed is not sufficient to make the Vienna Convention applicable. This is in contrast to the situation under the 1964 [page 166] Hague Conventions, which determined their applicability solely by reference to the international character of the contractual relationship.
As the Tribunal of Monza observed, the Vienna Convention contains two alternative "criteria of applicability," each sufficient by itself to bring a transaction within the scope of the Convention. According to Article 1(1)(a), the Convention applies when the parties have their places of business in different States that are Contracting States. When this criterion is satisfied, the Vienna Convention governs regardless of the results under conflicts rules, at least when the forum is a located in a Contracting State.
The Tribunal of Monza correctly concluded that the Convention did not apply under Article 1(1)(a). In 1988, at the time the contract was concluded, Sweden (unlike Italy) was not a contracting State, because only a State that has already ratified (or approved or accepted)[page 167] or acceded to the Convention, and in which the Convention has, as a result, come into force can be considered a contracting State.
5. Under the alternative principle of Article 1(1)(b), however, the Convention may apply even if the parties do not have their places of business in Contracting States, as the Tribunal of Monza itself pointed out. By virtue of a "classical" approach, the Vienna Convention also applies if one or both parties to an international sale have their places of business in non-contracting States, provided the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State. Only when the transaction lacks even this "minimum [page 168] contact" (which was not required by the Hague Conventions) is the matter outside the scope of the Convention.
While the Tribunal of Monza considered the possibility that the Convention applied [to the transaction before it] pursuant to Article 1(1)(b), the Court rejected this conclusion by virtue of reasoning that cannot be accepted. The Court held that "the rules of private international law cannot apply when the parties negotiate the law applicable to an international contract." In this case, the parties had chosen Italian law as the law applicable to their contractual relationship ("Italian law is to apply").
The Court's solution is based on the erroneous assumption that the private international law of Italy that is applicable to contracts does not include the parties' intent as a criterion indicating connection [between a transaction and a body of law]. In truth, the will of the parties is a fundamental criterion in the private international law of contracts,[page 169] and indeed constitutes the principle "criterion of connection" in this area, as suggested by Article 25(1) of the Preliminary Provisions [to the Italian Civil Code] cited by the Tribunal of Monza itself. Furthermore, if (as the Court states) the rules of private international law did not incorporate the intent of the parties among its criteria of connection, the parties could not (as a matter of private international law) choose the applicable law.
6. The Tribunal of Monza assumes that Article 25 of the Preliminary Provisions [to the Italian Civil Code] (which, [as was argued above,] it erroneously interpreted) is the conflict rule applicable to the case. In this the Court erred, as have others before it. With regard to international sales of goods, beginning September 1, 1964 the Convention on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Movables[page 170] of June 15 1955 has replaced Article 25(1) of the Preliminary Provisions, as both scholars and courts have confirmed.
However, with regard to cases like the one before the Tribunal of Monza -- i.e., cases where the parties have agreed to the choice of the applicable law -- the change just described does not lead to different results. The Convention of 1955, like Article 25(1) of the Preliminary Provisions, adopts "the intent of the contracting parties as a leading criterion of connection, and recognizes that this intent can manifest itself explicitly or implicitly."
The analyses [under the 1955 Convention and Article 25 of the Preliminary Provisions] differ, however, when the parties have failed to agree on the applicable law. In that case, Article 25(1) of the Preliminary Provisions designates the nationality of the contracting parties (if common to them) and the place where the contract was formed as the (objective) criteria of connection [for conflict of law purposes]. The [page 171] Convention of 1955, like more recent conventions proposed on the subject of private international law for contracts, does not adopt those criteria. Instead, the 1955 Convention submits the contract to the law of the habitual residence of the seller at the time it received the [buyer's] order, unless the seller (or its agent) received the order in the state of residence of the buyer, in which case the law of the buyer's state applies.
7. In light of the foregoing, it appears that the Tribunal of Monza should have applied the Vienna Convention pursuant to Article 1(1)(b). However, the 1980 Convention (Article 6), like the 1964 [page 172] Sales Conventions, permits the parties to exclude its application. Thus, the Vienna Convention does not necessarily apply even if the requirements of Article 1 are met. It is also necessary that the parties not exclude its application, either by express agreement or implicitly.[page 173]
Whereas express exclusion creates few issues, the same cannot be said for implicit exclusion. There are some situations in which all scholars agree that the Vienna Convention is excluded [by implication]. That is the case, for example, if the parties have chosen the law of a non-Contracting State as the applicable law. On the other hand, the effect of the parties designating the law of a Contracting State, as occurred in the transaction before the Tribunal of Monza, remains very debatable. According to some, such a designation excludes the application of the Convention -- at least where, absent the parties' agreement concerning choice of law, the law of a Contracting State (and, therefore, the Vienna Convention [pursuant to Article 1(1)(b)]) would be applicable. To apply the Convention in these circumstances, it is argued, would deprive the parties' choice of law of any practical effect. This analysis should be rejected. A choice of law agreement designating the law of a Contracting State, when made without clear reference to the purely domestic law [of the designated jurisdiction], does not exclude the applicability of the Vienna Convention. On the contrary,[page 174] such an agreement makes it certain that the Convention applies. In addition, an agreement to apply the law of a Contracting State has the effect of designating the law applicable to questions outside the scope of the Convention. This avoids problems in using conflicts rules to determine the law applicable to such questions. It follows, therefore, that the refusal of the Tribunal of Monza to apply the Vienna Convention was not justified, even taking into consideration the parties' power -- provided for by the Convention itself -- to exclude its application.
* Professor of Comparative Private Law, Katholike Universiteit Brabant Tilburg, the Netherlands; J.D. (Honors), University of Bologna, Italy; LL.M., University of Augsburg, Germany. Translated by Alessandra Michelini, Dottorato in Legge (cum laude) 1994, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; LL.M. candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 1995-96.
1. F. Galgano, Il Diritto Privato Fra Codice E Costituzione 6 (2d ed. 1980).
2. D. Memmo, Il contratto di vendita internazionale nel diritto uniforme, 37 Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto E Procedura Civile [Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ.] 181 (1983).
3. It would be impossible to list all the commentaries, monographs and articles discussing the Vienna Convention. Works of a general character devoted to the Convention include: B. Audit, La vente internationale des marchandises, Convention des Nations-Unies du 11 avril 1980 (1990); Commentary on the International Sales Law (C.M. Bianca & M.L. Bonell eds. 1987); Franco Ferrari, La vendita internazionale, Ambito di applicazione, Disposizioni generali, in Commentario del Codice Civile Scialoja-Branca (F. Galgano ed., 1994); A. Garro & C.P. Zuppi, Compraventa internacional de mercaderias (1990); R. Herber & B. Czerwenka, Internationales Kaufrecht, UN-Übereinkommen über Vertrage über den internationalen Warenkauf, Kommentar (1991); V. Heuze, La vente internationale de marchandises (1993); J.O. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (2d ed. 1989); M. Karollus, UN-Kaufrecht (1991); Albert Kritzer, Guide to Practical Applications of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1989); Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht (P. Schlechtriem ed., 1990); R. Loewe, Internationales Kaufrecht (1989); B. Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht. Das Un-Kaufrecht (Wiener Übereinkommen Von 1980) in Praxisorientierter Darstellung (1993); G. Reinhart, Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen Vom 11. April Über Verträge Über den Internationalen Warenkauf (1991); P. Schlechtriem, Einheitliches Un-Kaufrecht (1981). For more complete bibliographic references, see Michael R. Will, Internationale Bibliographie zum UN-Kaufrecht (1994); Peter Winship, Bibliography: International Sale of Goods, 18 Int'l Law. 53 (1984); Peter Winship, A Bibliography of Commentaries on the United Nations International Sales Convention, 21 Int'l Law. 585 (1987); Peter Winship, The U.N. Sales Convention. A Bibliography of English-Language Publications, 28 Int'l Law. 401 (1994). For a collection of legislative material relating to both substantive and private international aspects of international sales, see generally La compravendita internazionale (A. Pierobon ed., 1995).
4. At the time of this writing the Vienna Convention had come into force in the following countries: Argentina (Jan. 1, 1988); Australia (Apr. 1, 1989); Austria (Jan. 1, 1989); Belarus (Nov. 1, 1989); Bosnia-Herzegovina (Mar. 6, 1992); Bulgaria (Aug. 1, 1991); Canada (May 1, 1992); Chile (Mar. 1, 1991); China (Jan. 1, 1988); Czech Republic (Jan. 1, 1993); Denmark (Mar. 1, 1990); Ecuador (Feb. 1, 1993); Egypt (Jan. 1, 1988); Estonia (Oct. 1, 1994); Finland (Jan. 1, 1989); Iraq (April 1, 1991); Italy (Jan. 1, 1988); Lesotho (Jan. 1, 1988); Mexico (Jan. 1, 1989); the Netherlands (Jan. 1, 1992); Norway (Aug. 1, 1989); Romania (June 1, 1992); Russian Federation (Sept. 1, 1991); Slovakia (Jan. 1, 1993); Slovenia (June 25, 1991); Spain (Aug. 1, 1991); Sweden (Jan. 1, 1989); Switzerland (Mar. 1, 1991); Syrian Arab Republic (Jan. 1, 1988); Uganda (Mar. 1, 1993); Ukraine (Feb. 1, 1991); United States (Jan. 1, 1988); Yugoslavia (Jan. 1, 1988); Zambia (Jan. 1, 1988).
5. While Italian tribunals have paid scant attention to the Vienna Convention, courts of other countries are applying it with increasing frequency. See the references to such decisions in UNCITRAL, Clout: Case Law on UNCITRAL TextS, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/-SER.C./ABSTRACTS/1 et seq. (1993 and later). For a more complete list of citations, see Michael R. Will, International Sales Law Under CISG. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980). The First Hundred Decisions (1994). For short commentaries of the first foreign applications of the Convention, see M. Karollus, UN-Kaufrecht. Erste Gerichtsentscheidungen in Recht der Wirtschaft 319 (1991); U. Magnus, Aktuelle Fragen des UN-Kaufrechts, in Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 79 (1993); B. Piltz, Neue Entwicklungen im UN-Kaufrecht, in Neue Juristiche Wochenschrift 1101 (1994); G. Reinhart, Zum Inkraftftreten des UN-Kaufrechts für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Erste Entscheidungen deutscher Gerichte, in Praxis des Internationalen Privat - Und Verfahrensrechts 289 (1990).
6. Michael J. Bonell, La prima decisione italiana in tema di Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale, Giurisprudenza Italiana [Giur. It.], I, c. 146 (1994).
7. See the decisions of the Tribunal of Bolzano of August 13, 1992 and October 26, 1992, both in Giur. It., c. 381 et seq. In both the decisions, the Tribunal of Bolzano applied domestic Italian law when, indeed, it should have applied the Vienna Sales Convention of 1980 since both cases involved contracts for the sale of movables between parties whose places of business were in Italy and Germany respectively.
8. This commentary focuses exclusively on the question of the applicability of the Vienna Convention [in the case before the Tribunal of Monza]; it does not deal with substantive issues [in the case]. For a thorough analysis of the latter, see Bonell, supra note 6, at 146 ff.
9. Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods ("LUVI") and Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("LUFC"), both of which came into force in Italy with the law of ratification, No. 816, June 21, 1971, in Gazzetta Ufficiale, Supplemento Ordinario at No. 25 of October 13, 1971. The Hague Conventions have generated great interest among commentators. See, inter alia, Giorgio Bernini, The Uniform Laws on International Sale: The Hague Conventions of 1964, 3 J. World Trade L. 671 (1969); E. Von Caemmerer, Die Haager Konferenz über die internationale Vereinheitlichung des Kaufrechts vom 2.-25. April 1964: Die Ergebnisse der Konferenz hinsichtlich der Vereinheitlichung des Rechts des Abschlusses von Kaufverträgen, in Rabels zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 101 (1965); G. Eörsi, The Hague Conventions of 1964 and the International Sale of Goods, in Acta Juridica Academiae Scieniarum Hungaricae, II, 321 (1969); John Honnold, The 1964 Hague Conventions and Uniform Laws on the International Sale of Goods, 13 Am. J. Comp. L. 451 (1964).
10. A country that has ratified the Vienna Convention cannot remain a party to the 1964 Hague Conventions. See art. 99(3) of the Vienna Convention:
A state which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention and is a party to either or both the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods done at The Hague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Formation Convention) and the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods done at The Hague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Sales Convention) shall at that same time denounce, as the case may be, either or both the 1964 Hague Sales Convention and the 1964 Hague Formation Convention by notifying the Government of the Netherlands to that effect.
11. For a more complete discussion of this question see Franco Ferrari, L'ambito di applicazione della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale, Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ. 906 (1994).
12. Michael J. Bonell, La convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: origine, scelte e principi fondamentali, in Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ. 717 et seq. (1990). For a similar statement, see also Arthur Rosett, Critical Reflections on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 45 Ohio St. L.J. 265, 269 (1984).
13. For discussion of this issue see A. Frignani, Il contratto internazionale 264 (1990).
14. For more complete discussion of issues relating to the sphere of application rationae materiae, see G. De Nova, L'ambito di applicazione "rationae materiae" della convenzione di Vienna, in Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ. (1990).
15. For further discussion, see Piltz, supra note 3, at 23.
16. For a complete examination of the rights and obligations of the parties under the 1980 Convention, see Fritz Enderlein, Rights and Obligations of the Seller under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in International Sale of Goods. Dubrovnik Lectures 133 (P. Volken & P. Sarcevic eds., 1986); Allen E. Farnsworth, Rights and Obligations of the Seller, in Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980 Über den Internationalen Warenkauf. Lausanner Kolloquium 83 (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law ed. 1985); P. Niggemann, Die Pflichten des Verkäufers und die Rechtsbehelfe des Käufers, in Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht. Neues Recht für den Internationalen Warenkauf 77 (H. Hoyer & W. Posch eds., 1992); J.P. Plantard, Droits et obligations de l'acheteur, in Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980 Über den Internationalen Warenkauf. Lausanner Kolloquium 83 (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law ed. 1985); W. Posch, Die Pflichten des Käufers und die Rechtsbehelfe des Verkäufers, in Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht 143 (H. Hoyer & W. Posch eds., 1992); P. Schlechtriem, Die Pflichten des Verkäufers und di Folgen ihrer Verletzung, insbesondere bezüglich der Beschaffenheit der Ware, in Wiener Kaufrecht. Der Schweizerische Aussenhandel Unter Dem Un-Übereinkommen Über Den Internationalem Warenkauf 103 (E. Bucher ed., 1991); Leif Sevon, Obligations of the Buyer under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in International Sale of Goods. Dubrovnik Lectures 203 (P. Volken & P. Sarcevic eds., 1986); P. Tercier, Droits et obligations de l'achteur, in Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980 Über den Internationalen Warenkauf. Lausanner Kolloquium 119 (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law ed. 1985); P. Widmer, Droits et obligations du vendeur, id. 91; W. Wiegand, Die Pflichten des Käufers und die Folgen ihrer Verletzung, id. 143.
17. Article 30 provides: "The seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and this Convention."
18. Article 53 provides: "The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention."
19. P. Bernardini, La comprevendita internazionale, in Rapporti Contrattuali Nel Diritto Internazionale 85 (Aa. Vv., ed. 1991). A similar statement can be found in Memmo, supra note 2, at 189.
20. See, e.g., R. Herber & B. Czerwenka, supra note 3, Art. 1, at 47.
21. "Sale" and other concepts in the 1980 Convention must be interpreted in a manner independent of the special meanings attributed to them in any particular legal system. For more complete discussion of the issues surrounding interpretation of the Convention, see Michael J. Bonell, L'interpretazione del diritto uniforme alla luce dell'art 7 della Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale, Riv. dir. civ. II, 121; Franco Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, 25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 187 (1995); John Honnold, The Sales Convention in Action - Uniform International Words: Uniform Application?, 8 J.L. & Com. 207 (1988); John O. Honnold, Uniform Words and Uniform Application. The 1980 Sales Convention and International Juridical Practice, in Einheitliches Käufrecht und Nationales Obligationenrecht 115 (P. Schlechtriem ed., 1987); John O. Honnold, Interpretacion de la Convencion de 1980 sobre compraventas, uniformidad, buena fa, lagunas y derecho interno, in Anuario Juridico 111 (1983); M.N. Rosenberg, The Vienna Convention: Uniformity in Interpretation and Gap-Filling - An Analysis and Application, Austl. Bus. L. Rev. 442 (1992).
22. The definition of sale suggested by arts. 30 and 53 of the Vienna Convention is extended in articles 3 and 73 to contracts that in Italy are not necessarily considered sales contracts - appalto, somministrazione, etc. . . . For a more complete discussion of this issue, see Ferrari, supra note 3, at 47-50 and 76-86.
23. For similar definitions, see M. Endler & J. Daub, Softwareüberlassung und UN-Kaufrecht, Computer und Recht 601 (1993); Ferrari, supra note 3, at 45; Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 3, at 16.
24. See supra notes 11 and 12 and accompanying text.
25. See Carbone e M. Lopez de Gonzalo, Nuove Leggi Civili Commentate Art. 1, 3 (1989).
26. See Frignani, supra note 13, at 262 ("for applicability purposes the Uniform Law (of 1964) designates two criteria of internationality: the first is subjective, and relates to the contracting parties themselves . . . ; the second is objective, and refers to the subject matter of the contract or the circumstances of the conclusion of the contract"). See also Bernardini, supra note 19, at 88; Lopez de Gonzalo, La vendita internazionale, in I Contratti in Generale 907 (G. Alpa & M. Bessone eds., 1991).
27. The French and English versions of the official text of the Hague Conventions refer respectively to the "place of business" and the "établissement." The unofficial Italian translation and some commentators (e.g., Memmo, supra note 2, at 199) use the expression "stabilimento," which has been criticized by Frignani, supra note 13, at 262 n.9, as "over-emphasizing physical elements."
28. See LUVI, supra note 9, art. 1(2). For a judicial application of this rule, see BGH, October 22, 1980, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1158 (1981).
29. See P.H. Kahn, La Convention de la Haye du 1er juillet portant loi uniforme sur la vente internationale des objets mobiliers corporels, 17 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Commercial 697 (1964).
30. E.g., the opinion of the LG Hamburg, November 14, 1975, reported in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 425 (1977).
31. LUVI, supra note 9, art. 1.
32. For a more thorough study of the differences between the Hague Convention and the Vienna Convention, see M. Ndulo, The Vienna Sales Convention 1980 and the Hague Uniform Laws on International Sale of Goods 1964: A Comparative Analysis, in Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 1 (1989); F.A. Van der Velden, The Law of International Sales: The Hague Convention 1964 and the UNCITRAL Uniform Sales Code 1980 - Some Main Items Compared, in Hague-Zagreb Essays 46 (C.C.A. Voskuil & J.A. Wade eds., 1983).
33. For a more detailed discussion of issues relating to the internationality requirement of the 1980 Sales Convention, see Ferrari, supra note 3, at 22-26.
34. Art. 10 of the Vienna Convention.
35. See Carbone/Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 25, at 3; P. Kindler, Die Anwendungsvoraussetzungen des Wiener Kaufrechtsübereinkommens der Vereinten Nationen im deutschitalienischen Rechtsverkehr, in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 777 (1988); P. Volken, Das Wiener Übereinkommen über den internationalen Warenkauf; Andwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich, in Einheitliches Kaufrecht und Nationales Obligationenrecht, supra note 16, at 92.
36. Contra S. Carbone, L'ambito di applicazione ed i criteri interpretativi della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale, in La Vendita Internazionale 68 (AA. VV. eds., 1981) (asserting that "the international character of the relationship is established solely by the circumstance that, at the time of contracting, seller and buyer were located in two different States both of which were parties to the Convention").
37. E.g., Reinhart, supra note 3, at 13.
38. Accord, G. Cassoni, La compravendita nelle convenzioni e nel diritto internazionale privato, Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale Privato E Processuale 431 n.6 (1982).
39. See Ferrari, supra note 11, at 911; R. Luzzato, Vendita (Diritto internazionale privato), in Xlvi Enciclopedia del Diritto 510 n.34 (1993); K. Siehr, Der internationale Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts, in Rabels Zeitschrift für Auslandisches und Internationales Privatrecht 590 (1988).
40. Like the 1964 Hague Conventions, the 1980 Vienna Convention applies, rationae materiae [i.e., by reason of the subject matter], only to international sales of moveable property. The case before the Tribunal of Monza involved a sale of ironchrome - a commodity that certainly constitutes a moveable. Thus it does not appear necessary on this occasion to recall the issues that arise out of the Convention's failure to define "goods." For a detailed discussion of those issues, see Ferrari, supra note 3, at 50-55.
41. See Ferrari, supra note 11, at 916. The distinction made by the Vienna Convention between the criteria for internationality and the criteria for applicability creates two categories of international sales contracts: those to which the 1980 Convention applies, and those to which it does not apply.
42. See N. Boscherio, Le Convenzioni di diritto materiale uniforme, XXI Trattato di Diritto Privato 267 (P. Rescigno ed., 1987) (stating that the Vienna Convention has abandoned the pretension, "so vigourously criticized in the [Hague] Conventions of 1964, of determining autonomously its own sphere of application simply by referring to the international character of the sale").
43. The Court stated: "Article 1 of the Convention limits its sphere of application to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States (in this case, Italy on one side and Sweden on the other) when one of the following alternative possibilities exists: a) both States are Contracting States; or b) the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State."
44. Accord Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 3, at 49; Memmo, supra note 2, at 205; W. Punder, Das Einheitliche UN-Kaufrecht -Anwendung kraft kollisionsrechtlicher Verweisung nach Art. 1 lit. B UN-Kaufrecht, in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 869 (1990).
45. 45 Carbone/Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 25, at 4.
46. See Kindler, supra note 35, at 777; Laszlo Reczei, The Area of Operation of the International Sales Convention, 29 Am. J. Comp. L. 513, 518 (1981); Siehr, supra note 39, at 591.
47. See Boscherio, supra note 42, at 269.
48. See G. Sacerdoti, I criteri di applicazione della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: diritto uniforme, diritto internazionale privato e autonomia dei contraenti, Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ. 738 (1990) (asserting that "only where the forum is that of a Contracting State does the Vienna Convention definitely apply without regard to what the rules of private international law may provide").
49. See Bonell, supra note 6, at 147.
50. The Court held that, under art. 1(1)(a),
the Convention applies if the sale occurs between parties whose places of
business are in different Contracting States. A Contracting State is one that has
not only agreed to the Convention, but one in which the Convention has come
into force (as specified in art. 100(a) of the Convention . . . ). We therefore
conclude that the Vienna Convention does not apply to the contract under
consideration, which was concluded before the Convention entered into force
in the country where one of the contracting corporations had its place of business.
51. See supra note 4.
52. See art. 91(2) of the Vienna Convention.
53. See art. 91(3) of the Vienna Convention.
54. The difference in terminology (ratification, approval, acceptance, accession) does not correspond to a substantive difference: all these measures lead to the same result.
55. The Convention makes a distinction with respect to the applicability of Part II (formation of the contract) and Part III (rights and obligations of the parties). Art. 100 provides as follows:
(1) This Convention applies to the formation of a contract only when the proposal
for concluding the contract is made on or after the date when the Convention
enters into force in respect of the Contracting States referred to in subparagraph
(1)(a) or the Contracting State referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of article 1.
(2) This Convention applies only to contracts concluded on or after the date when
the Convention enters into force in respect of the Contracting States referred to in
subparagraph (1)(a) or the Contracting State referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)
of article 1.
56. For a more detailed discussion of the history of this provision, see P. Winship, Private International Law and the U.N. Sales Convention, Cornell Int'l L.J. 485, 503-08 (1988).
57. See Ferrari, supra note 11, at 919.
58. For this characterization see Cassoni, supra note 38, at 434. Compare S. Carbone & R. Luzzato, I contratti del commercio internazionale, XI Trattato di Diritto Privato 139 (P. Rescigno ed., 1984) (a "well-known technique").
59. P. Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law 24 n.45 (1986) states that the result referred to in the text applies even if both parties to the sales contract are located in non-contracting States. But see Winship, supra note 56, at 501 (questioning the applicability of the Vienna Convention to transactions that lack any connection to the Convention, such as international sales between parties whose places of business are in non-contracting States).
60. But see D. Memmo, Difformita' del testo bilingue ed interpretazione del contratto, Giur. It. 384 et seq. (1994), where the author states that the Vienna Convention does not apply to an international sales contract formed before the Convention has come into force for both States in which the parties are located. This opinion must be rejected: it is contradicted, on the one hand, by the text of art. 1(1)(b) of the Convention, and on the other hand, by the German decisions applying the Convention. For a more critical analysis of this issue (with references to cases) see Ferrari, supra note 3, at 35-43.
61. Carbone, supra note 36, at 71 et seq.; Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 3, at 19; Siehr, supra note 39, at 592 et seq.
62. This is the most significant difference in [the applicability provisions of] the Vienna Convention and the Hague Conventions. In fact, the 1964 Conventions did not require any "contact" between the international sales contract and the Contracting States. In other words, they "adopted, with regard to their sphere of application, the so called erga omnes approach, making the binding force of the Conventions and their spheres of application coincide." Carbone/Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 25, at 4. According to this erga omnes approach, the Hague Conventions had to be applied (under the conditions mentioned in Part 2 of the text) even where the contractual relationship had formed outside the territory of the Contracting States, with the result that "the principles of private international law" were ousted. Sacerdoti, supra note 48, at 738. Some authors argue that the results under art. 1(1)(b) [of the Vienna Convention] approach near to those under the erga omnes approach of the Hague Conventions. R. Herber, Anwendungsbereich des Uncitral-Kaufrechtsübereinkommens, in Das Uncitral-Kaufrecht im Vergleich Zum Österreichischen Kaufrecht 36 (P. Doralt ed., 1985); Reinhart, supra note 3, at 14 (stating that 1980 Convention applies more broadly than did the 1964 Conventions).
63. The criterion of applicability referred to in the text has been heavily criticized. See, for example, G. Eörsi, A propos the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 31 Am. J. Comp. L. 333, 353 (1983); Herber, supra note 62 at 99ff. This is why Contracting States are permitted to exclude art. 1(1)(b) by making a declaration pursuant to art. 95 of the Vienna Convention.
64. See Bonell, supra note 6, at 147.
65. For discussion of the parties' will as a "criterion of connection" for choice of law purposes, see Balladore Paglieri, L'autonomia dei contraenti nel diritto internazionale privato, Diritto Internazionale 153 (1963); S. Carbone, L'autonomia privata nel diritto internazionale privato delle obbligazioni, Diritto Comunitario E Scambi Internazionali 15 (1982); A. Curti Gialdino, La volonté des parties en droit international privé, 137 Receuil des Cours 743; M. Giuliano, La loi d'autonomie: le principe et sa justification théorique, Riv. Dir. Int. Priv. e Proc. 217 (1979); M. Giuliano, La loi d'autonomie et sa mise en oeuvre, 2 Studi Grassetti 887 et seq (1980); J.M. Jacquet, Principe d'autonomie et contrats internationaux (1983); F. Pocar, Party Autonomy and Conflicts of Laws in Contracts 79 (1984).
66. See E. Vitta, III Diritto internazionale privato 233 (1975) ("the criterion of intent is not only the most fundamental of the three adopted by the Preliminary Provisions [to the Italian Civil Code] but also the one that . . . permeates this entire area of the law").
67. See Appellate Court of Milan, April 26, 1965, Giustizia Civile 782 (1965).
68. Article 25(1) of the Preliminary Provisions [to the Italian Civil Code] provides: "Obligations arising from contract are governed by the national law of the contracting parties, if common to them; otherwise by that of the place in which the contract was made. In all cases a different intention of the parties controls."
69. The parties' autonomy in the sphere of private international law - i.e., their power to designate the law governing the contract - contrasts with their "autonomy of bargaining," defined as the power to determine the content of their reciprocal obligations. For this definition see, e.g., De Gonzalo, supra note 26, at 908; Perassi, Sull' autonomia dei contraenti, in II Scritti Giuridici 176ff (1958); Vitta, supra note 66, at 238 (including references to additional authority).
70. See also R. De Nova, Obbligazioni (diritto internazionale privato), in XXIX Enciclopedia Del Diritto 458 (1979) (stating that application of the law chosen by the parties depends on the parties' intent, "but the legal effect is conferred on the parties' choice by Italian law, specifically by the Italian provisions on conflicts of laws"); D. Anzilotti, Il principio dell'autonomia dei contraenti nei rapporti fra l'art. 9 delle disposizioni preliminari al codice civile a l'art. 58 del codice commerciale, in Scritti Di Diritto Internazionale Privato 631 (1960) (stating that the intent of the contracting parties acquires legal effect only from private international law, which determines the way in which the law governing a relationship should be recognized).
71. This point, it appears, is missed in Bonell, supra note 6, at 147.
72. See, e.g., Corte d'Appello di Genova, October 24 1970, Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale Privato E Processuale 182 (1970).
73. For a commentary on this Convention, as well as for an analysis of its relation to the conventions dealing with the substantive law of international sales, see M.J. Bonell, Zum Verhältnis des Wiener Kaufrechtsübereinkommens zum Haager Kauf-IPR Übereinkommen von 1955 aus italienischer Sicht, in Jahrbuch für Italienisches Recht 117 (1990); G. Conetti, Problemi di diritto internazionale privato derivanti dalla partecipazione dell'Italia alla convenzione di Vienna del 1980, Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale Privato E Processuale [Riv. Trim. Dir. In. Priv. Proc.] 41 (1987); G. Conetti, Interationalprivatrechtliche Probleme, die sich aus dem Beitritt Italiens zur Wiener Konvention über den internationalen Kauf ergeben, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 83 (1987); A. Giardina, Il mutamento della disciplina internazionale privatistica della vendita: problemi temporali, in Annotazioni Di Diritto Internazionale 229 et seq. (1966).
74. The Convention on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Movables of June 15, 1955 is made effective in Italy by Law No. 50, February 4, 1958, 48 Gazzetta Ufficiale, February 25, 1958. The text of this Convention is reprinted in Riv. Trim. Int. Priv. E Proc. 189 (1965).
75. See P. Mengozzi, Diritto internazionale italiano 173 (1987) (stating that "within the limits of its sphere of application, the rule established by the 1955 Convention replaces the one in art. 25(1) because the Convention applies to international sales involving States that have not ratified the Convention . . . "). See also La compravendita internazionale di beni mobili nei rapporti tra Italia e Germania 17-18 (E. Jayme ed., 1990); Ferrari, supra note 11, at 920-921 n.172; Luzzato, Vendita (diritto internazionale privato), in XLVI Enciclopedia Del Diritto 515 (1993).
76. The leading decision is that of the Tribunal of Verona, July 20, 1992, Giurisprudenza Di Merito 966 (1993).
77. Art. 2 of the 1955 Convention provides:
(1) La vente est régie par la loi interne du pays désigné par les parties
(2) Cette désignation droit fair l'objet d'une cölause expresse, ou résulter
indubitablement des dispositionns du contrat.
(3) Les conditions, relatives au consentement des parties quant à la loi
déclarée applicable, sont déterminés
par cette loi.
78. See L. Forlati Picchio, Contratto nel diritto internazionale privato, in 4 Digesto 214 (4th ed. 1989) ("Art. 25(1) provides that the will of the parties is the primary criterion of connection for private international law purposes.").
79. Mengozzi, supra note 75, at 173.
80. There is also a difference between the treatment of choice of law clauses under the Convention of 1955 and under art. 25 of the Preliminary Provisions: according to art. 2(3) of the Convention, the validity of the parties' agreement on choice of applicable law is governed by the lex causae, while under art. 25 of the Preliminary Provisions it is governed by the lex fori. See R. De Nova, supra note 70, at 467 et seq.; M. Giuliano, La loi applicabile aux contrats: problèmes choisis, 158 Receuil des Cours 228.
81. See Cassoni, supra note 38, at 440.
82. See the Hague Convention of October 20, 1985 on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods, intended to replace the Hague Convention of 1955. The 1985 Convention does not adopt the criteria of connection employed by art. 25 (1) of the Preliminary Provisions, referring instead, as a general rule, to the law of the seller's place of business or, as an exception, to the law of the buyer's place of business (art. 8). For an analysis of this Convention, see N. Boscherio, La nuova convenzione dell'Aja sulla legge applicable alla vendita internazionale, Riv. Dir. Int. Priv. Proc. 507 (1986); O. Lando, The 1985 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Sales, in Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 60 (1987); Y. Lousseouarn, La Convention de La Haye d'octobre 1985 sur la loi applicable aux contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, in Revue Critique De Droit International Privé 271 (1986); C. McLachlan, The New Hague Sales Convention and the Limits of the Choice of Law Process, 102 L.Q. Rev. 591 (1986); G. Napoletano, Convenzione dell'Aja del 30 ottobre 1985 sulla legge applicabile alla compravendita internazionale di merci, in Dir. Comunit. Scambi Int. 31 (1986).
83. See also Mengozzi, supra note 75, at 173-74.
84. Art. 3 of the Convention of 1955 provides:
(1) A défaut de loi déclarée applicable par les parties, dans les conditions prévues
à l'article précédent, la vente est régie par la loi interne du pays où le vendeur a
sa résidence habituelle au moment où il reçoit la commande. Si la commande est
reçue par un établissement du vendeur, la vente est régie par la loi interne du pays
où est situé cet établissement.
(2) Toutefois, la vente est régie par la loi interne du pays où l'acheteur a sa
résidence habituelle, ou dans lequel il possède l'établissement qui a passé la
commande, si c'est dans ce pays que la commande a été reçue, soit par le
vendeur, soit par son raprésentant, agent ou commisvoyageur.
(3) S'il s'agit d'un marché de bourse ou d'une vente aux enchères, la vente est
régie pat la loi interne du pays où se trouve la bourse ou dans lequel sont
effectueés les enchères.
85. This result would not change even if, at the time the sales contract was concluded, the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of June 19, 1980 had been in force. (The Rome Convention was ratified in Italy with Law No. 975 of December 19, 1984 (Gazzetta Ufficiale, Supplemento Ordinario No. 25, January 30, 1985), effective January 1, 1991.) Although the Rome Convention includes a "subjective" criterion (art. 3), by virtue of which the choice of Italian law by the parties would appear to submit the transaction to the Vienna Convention pursuant to art. 1(1)(b), the true reason the same result would follow derives from the fact that the Rome Convention "does not prejudice the application of the international conventions of which a state is or will be a member" (art. 21). In other words, the Rome Convention would yield to the application of the Hague Convention of 1955. For more detailed discussion of this issue, see H. Gaudemet-Tallon, Le noveau droit international privé européen des contrats, Revue Trimestrielle De Droit Europeen 222 n.22 bis (1981); P. Kaye, The New Private International Law of Contract of the European Community 367 (1993); G. Sacerdoti, Finalità e caratteri generali della Convenzione di Roma; la volontà della parti come criterio di collegamento, in La Convenzione Di Roma Sulla Legge Applicabile Alle Obbligazioni Contrattuali 12 (Aa. Vv. Ed.); E. Vitta & F. Mosconi, Corso di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 314 (5th ed. 1994). For a different view see V. Nicolella & M. Orlandi, Sulla vendita internazionale di cose mobili, Giurisprudenza Di Merito 970 (1993), where the authors assert (without further explanation) that the coming into force of the Rome Convention deprived the 1955 Hague Convention of its effectiveness.
For general discussion of the Rome Convention, see M.J. Bonell, Il diritto applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali, I Rivista Di Diritto Commerciale 215 (1980); A. Borgioli, La Convenzione di Roma sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali, I, Giur. Comm. 149 (1983); Georges Delaume, The European Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: Why a Convention?, 22 Va. J. Int'l L. 105 (1981); A. Giardina, La Convenzione comunitaria sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali, Riv. Dir. Int. 795 (1981); E. Jayme, The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractial Obligations, in International Contracts and Conflicts of Laws: A Collection of Essays 36 (P. Sarcevic ed., 1990); Friedrich K. Juenger, The European Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: Some Critical Reflections, 22 Va. J. Int'l L. 123 (1981); A. Kassis, Le nouveau droit européen des contrats internationaux (1993); La Convenzione Di Roma Sulla Legge Applicabile Alle Obbligazioni Contrattuali (Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato ed., 1983); Paul LaGarde, The European Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: An Apologia, in Va. J. Int'l L. 91 (1981): O. Lando, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, in Common Mkt. L. Rev. 159 (1987); Contract Conflicts. The E.E.C. Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: A Comparative Study (P.M. North ed., 1982); R. Plender, The European Contracts Convention (1991); F. Pocar, L'entrata in vigore della Convenzione di Roma del 1980 sulla legge applicabile ai contratti, Riv. Dir. Int. Priv. E Proc. 249 (1991); Verso una Disciplina Comunitaria Della Legge Applicabile Ai Contratti (T. Treves ed., 1983); E. Vitta, La Convenzione CEE sulle obbligazioni contrattuali e l'ordinamento italiano, Riv. Dir. Int. Priv. E Proc. 838 (1981).
86. See Ferrari, supra note 3, at 110, and authorities cited therein.
87. "The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to Article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions." Art. 6 of the Vienna Convention. For a thorough examination of the question of the autonomy of the parties under the Vienna Convention and the other Conventions on international sales, see N. Boscherio, Profili dell'autonomia privata nelle convenzioni di diritto uniforme sulla vendita internazionale, in l'Unificazione Del Diritto Internazionale Privato E Processuale. Studi in Memoria Di Mario Giuliano 75 (Aa. Vv. ed. 1989).
88. It is now widely agreed that exclusion [of the Convention] may be implied. See, e.g., B. Czerwenka, Rechtsanwendungsprobleme im internationalen Kaufrecht 170 (1988); S. Date-Bah, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980: Overview and Selective Commentary, Rev. Ghana L. 54 (1979): Barry Nicholas, The Vienna Convention on International Sales Law, 105 L.Q. Rev. 201, 228 (1989); Reinhart, supra note 3, at 27. There are, nevertheless, those who deny this possibility. See, e.g., James E. DeFranco & Isaak I. Dore, A Comparison of the Non-Substantive Provisions of the UNCITRAL-Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Commercial Code, 23 Harv. Int'l L.J. 49, 53 (1982); Isaak I. Dore, Choice of Law under the International Sales Convention: A U.S. Perspective, 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 521, 532 (1983); Maureen T. Murphy, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Creating Uniformity in International Sales Law, 12 Fordham Int'l L.J. 727, 728 (1989); Robert S. Rendell, The New U.N. Convention on International Sales Contracts: An Overview, 15 Brook. J. Int'l L. 23, 25 (1989).
89. For a detailed discussion of exclusion of the Vienna Convention under art. 6, see H. Holthaussen, Vertraglicher Ausschluß des UN-Übereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge, in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 515 (1989); C. Witz, L'exclusion de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises par la volonté des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980), Receuil Dalloz-Sirey 107 (1990).
90. See Commentary on the International Sales Law Art. 6, 56 (C.M. Bianca & M.J. Bonell eds., 1987); Carbone & Luzzato, supra note 58, at 132; F. Enderlein, D. Maskow & H. Strohbach, Internationales Kaufrecht. Kaufrechtskonvention. Verjahrungskonvention. Vertretungskonvention. Rechtsanwendungskonvention 58 (1991); Piltz, supra note 3, at 48; Sacerdoti, supra note 48, at 746.
91. See A. Vekas, Zum personlichen und raumlichen Anwendungsbereich des UN-Einheitskaufrechts, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 346 (1987).
92. Application of the Sales Convention is undoubtedly precluded when the parties' choice of law "explicitly refers to provisions which govern purely domestic cases." Michael J. Bonell, Nuove Leggi Civili Commentate Art. 6 at 18 (1989). For example, the following clause would displace the 1980 Convention in favor of domestic law: "Italian law as codified in the Civil Code applies to this contract." For other examples of clauses that exclude the Convention in favor of domestic law, see E. Allan Farnsworth, Review of Standard Forms or Terms under the Vienna Convention, 21 Cornell Int'l L.J. 439, 442 (1988).
93. Accord, A. Boggiano, La Convencion de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Contratos de Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderias en el ambito del derecho internacional privado argentino, in Revista de Derecho Comercial Y De Las Obligaciones 357 (1989); Kritzer, supra note 3, at 100; M. Plantard, Un Nouveau droit uniforme de la vente internationale: La Convention des Nationes Unies di 11 avril 1980, Journal De Droit International 321 (1988); Peter Winship, International Sales Contracts under the 1980 Vienna Convention, U.C.C.L.J. 55, 65 (1984).
94. The most recent case law has adopted this position. See OLG, Dusseldorf, January 8, 1993, Praxis Des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 412 (1993).
95. Accord, Ronald A. Brand, Nonconvention Issues in the Preparation of Transnational Sales Contracts, 8 J.L. & Com. 145, 148 (1988).
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography || Go to CISG Case Search Form